Ziusudra, and the flood myth.

[fallingblood]

This stems from a different thread, but instead of derailing that one more, I thought I would move this discussion here. This is the basic claim I will be dealing with:

You already know this

it was a regional flood recanted through mythology based on oral tradition.

Ziusudra was a real king who went down the Euphrates in the flood of 2900BC on a barge loaded with goods and livestock. The regional flood and devastation to the local population living along the river was real and attested. The man was real.


this regional flood spawned all the flood legends in the levant including the Israeli's mythical flood.

Now, before we get started at all, there must be a couple of points that are laid down. First, Ziusudra was a historical king. Second, there was a flood in or around 2900 B.C.E.

Now, the tale of Ziusudra is told in three myths, the earliest being the Eridu Genesis (the others being the Epic of Gilgamesh and Epic of Atrahasis). The idea that Ziusudra building a barge and loading it with goods and livestock come from these myths. There are no other historical records that record such a story.

The Eridu Genesis dates from around 2150 B.C.E. That is some 750 years after the fact. So we are talking about a considerable amount of time.

The Eridu Genesis is filled with mythological ideas. According to the fragmentary pieces of that story, it is said that the gods grew angry and want to destroy humankind. One of those gods decides to warn Ziusudra about the flood and tells him to build a large boat, which he apparently loads up with goods and animals. Once the flood is over, one of the gods apparently takes Ziusudra to live forever in Dilmun. Clearly, we have a mythological story here.

So, even though the man is attested to, and the flood is attested to, does that make this mythological story historical? Of course not. Does this mythological story show that Ziusudra really did build a large boat and loaded it up with animals and goods? Of course not.

Looking at mythological stories, it is commonplace for an author to take a historical character, event, or the like, and mythologize it. Why should we assume that this case is any different? We shouldn't.

 

[outhouse]

point is, we know for a fact noahs legends was borrowed from these flood myths as they often match word for word.

and these flood myths are based from that real attested flood when the Euphrates overflowed in 2900 BC.

 

[fallingblood]

point is, we know for a fact noahs legends was borrowed from these flood myths as they often match word for word.

and these flood myths are based from that real attested flood when the Euphrates overflowed in 2900 BC.

Point is, this isn't what I was talking about.

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

Clarification please: We shouldn't assume that a story nearly 5,000 years old, with multiple sources, wasn't a myth? Or we should assume that this king was real and the basis for local flood myths? Should we assume that the storis about Ziusudra are based off another person? Are we seeking to illustrate that myths evolve from truth?

The OP seems to illustrate points to keep in mind, but leaves questions as to what the discussion is supposed to be about.

 

[fallingblood]

Clarification please: We shouldn't assume that a story nearly 5,000 years old, with multiple sources, wasn't a myth? Or we should assume that this king was real and the basis for local flood myths? Should we assume that the storis about Ziusudra are based off another person? Are we seeking to illustrate that myths evolve from truth?

The OP seems to illustrate points to keep in mind, but leaves questions as to what the discussion is supposed to be about.

We should assume that this particular myth is like nearly any other myth. That it may have had some historical aspects to it, such as a historical figure, but as a whole, it is not a historical narrative.

 

[outhouse]

We should assume that this particular myth is like nearly any other myth. That it may have had some historical aspects to it, such as a historical figure, but as a whole, it is not a historical narrative.

who claimed it was a historical narrative?

I hope you dont get a nickname like "dryer" for spinning everything your way

 

[fallingblood]

who claimed it was a historical narrative?

I hope you dont get a nickname like "dryer" for spinning everything your way

Read the OP. I state it all in the OP.

 

[gnostic]

Now, before we get started at all, there must be a couple of points that are laid down. First, Ziusudra was a historical king. Second, there was a flood in or around 2900 B.C.E.

I kept accept everything you wrote in your OP, except Ziusudra being a historical king.

Maybe he is, or may he is not. I don't know. He is definitely semi-historical, like the real Gilgamesh of the 28th or 27th century BCE. Legends just grow around these 2 important early figures.

Ziusudra does appear in the Sumerian King List (at least in one version of the king list).

Ziusudra does appear in a wisdom writing: The Instructions of Shuruppak. Though it appeared that Shuruppak is giving instruction to his son, Ziusudra, no reference to the flood. This is earlier than the Eridu Genesis, written some time in the 1st half of the 3rd millennium BCE.

Eridu Genesis, you've already mentioned.

Ziusudra (and the flood) is alluded to, in one of the early Sumerian poems of Gilgamesh (in Gilgames and the Netherworld), written around about the same time as the Eridu Genesis.

I don't know if the (real) Ziusudra and the real Flood (of 2900 BCE) are truly connected to one another, even though they are connected in myths, centuries later.

What I do know is that Noah's version is borrowing of Babylonian ideas, and the Babylonian version borrowed it from the Sumerian ideas.

 

[outhouse]

What I do know is that Noah's version is borrowing of Babylonian ideas, and the Babylonian version borrowed it from the Sumerian ideas.

and the Sumerians took it from the real flood of 2900 BC

 

[fallingblood]

I kept accept everything you wrote in your OP, except Ziusudra being a historical king.

Maybe he is, or may he is not. I don't know. He is definitely semi-historical, like the real Gilgamesh of the 28th or 27th century BCE. Legends just grow around these 2 important early figures.

Ziusudra does appear in the Sumerian King List (at least in one version of the king list).

Ziusudra does appear in a wisdom writing: The Instructions of Shuruppak. Though it appeared that Shuruppak is giving instruction to his son, Ziusudra, no reference to the flood. This is earlier than the Eridu Genesis, written some time in the 1st half of the 3rd millennium BCE.

Eridu Genesis, you've already mentioned.

Ziusudra (and the flood) is alluded to, in one of the early Sumerian poems of Gilgamesh (in Gilgames and the Netherworld), written around about the same time as the Eridu Genesis.

I don't know if the (real) Ziusudra and the real Flood (of 2900 BCE) are truly connected to one another, even though they are connected in myths, centuries later.

What I do know is that Noah's version is borrowing of Babylonian ideas, and the Babylonian version borrowed it from the Sumerian ideas.

I agree with you on all of this.

I think it is quite telling that Ziusudra, even in the king's list though, is not mentioned to have been part of the flood. That way I have read it is that Ziusudra reigned, and then after that, there was the flood. So it seems as if they are disconnected, and only later on were connected in a myth.

 

[gnostic]

and the Sumerians took it from the real flood of 2900 BC

Yes, I know that.

But fallingblood's real question is the historical Ziusudra really connect to this flood?

Or did the oral tradition embellishment (myth) make the person contemporary to the Flood?

There are number of myths that I know of, who made historical people of different times as contemporary in their myth.

A good example is the Norse myth of Sigurd and the Burgundian family, in the Volsunga Saga. Below is the legendary characters (that appear in the saga of the Volsungs and the Edda) and their historical counterparts:

Svanhild = Sunilda (Ostrogoth, d. c. AD 370)
Iormunrekk = Ermanaric (historical king of Ostrogoth, d. AD 375)
Gunnar = Guntharius (Burgundian, d. AD 437)
Gudrun = Hildico or Ildico (Visigoth, c. AD 453)
Atli = Attila the Hun(d. AD 453)
Brynhild = Brunhild (Visgoth queen, c. AD 567)
Sigurd = Sigbert I (Frankish king, d. 575)
​

Through legend, they all become contemporaries.

Can you prove without doubts that Ziusudra was survivor of the 2900 BCE flood?

 

[outhouse]

Sumerian creation myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Zi-ud-sura is known to us from the following sources:

• From the Sumerian Flood myth discussed above.
• In reference to his immortality in some versions of The Death of Gilgamesh[4]
• Again in reference to his immortality in The Poem of Early Rulers[5]
• As Xisuthros (or Xisouthros, Ξίσουθρος) in Berossus' Hellenistic account of the Ancient Near East Flood myth, preserved in later excerpts.

Xisuthros was also included in Berossus' king list, also preserved in later excerpts.

• As Ziusudra in the WB-62 recension of the Sumerian king list. This text diverges from all other extant king lists by listing the city of Shuruppak as a king, and including Ziusudra as "Shuruppak's" successor.[6]
• A later version of a document known as The Instructions of Shuruppak[7] refers to Ziusudra.[8]

In both of the late-dated king lists cited above, the name Zi-ud-sura was inserted immediately before a flood event included in all versions of the Sumerian king list, apparently creating a connection between the ancient Flood myth and a historic flood mentioned in the king list. However, no other king list mentions Zi-ud-sura.

 

[fallingblood]

Sumerian creation myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Zi-ud-sura is known to us from the following sources:

• From the Sumerian Flood myth discussed above.
• In reference to his immortality in some versions of The Death of Gilgamesh[4]
• Again in reference to his immortality in The Poem of Early Rulers[5]
• As Xisuthros (or Xisouthros, Ξίσουθρος) in Berossus' Hellenistic account of the Ancient Near East Flood myth, preserved in later excerpts.

Xisuthros was also included in Berossus' king list, also preserved in later excerpts.

• As Ziusudra in the WB-62 recension of the Sumerian king list. This text diverges from all other extant king lists by listing the city of Shuruppak as a king, and including Ziusudra as "Shuruppak's" successor.[6]
• A later version of a document known as The Instructions of Shuruppak[7] refers to Ziusudra.[8]

In both of the late-dated king lists cited above, the name Zi-ud-sura was inserted immediately before a flood event included in all versions of the Sumerian king list, apparently creating a connection between the ancient Flood myth and a historic flood mentioned in the king list. However, no other king list mentions Zi-ud-sura.

And none of this supports your statement that Ziusudra survived the flood on a barge with a bunch of animals. That is still a myth.

 

[outhouse]

But I like this one better


Ziusudra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sumerian king list
Main article: Sumerian king list
In the WB-62 Sumerian king list recension, Ziusudra, or Zin-Suddu of Shuruppak is recorded as having reigned as both king and gudug priest for 10 sars, or periods of 3,600.[5] In this version, Ziusudra inherited rulership from his father Šuruppak (written SU.KUR.LAM) who ruled for 10 sars.[6] The line following Ziusudra in WB-62 reads: Then the flood swept over. The next line reads: After the flood swept over, kingship descended from heaven; the kingship was in Kish. The city of Kish flourished in the Early Dynastic period soon after an archaeologically attested river flood in Shuruppak (modern Tell Fara, Iraq) and various other Sumerian cities. This flood has been radiocarbon dated to ca. 2900 BCE.[7] Polychrome pottery from the Jemdet Nasr period (ca. 3000–2900 BCE) was discovered immediately below the Shuruppak flood stratum,[8] and the Jemdet Nasr period immediately preceded the Early Dynastic I period.[9]
The significance of Ziusudra's name appearing on the WB-62 king list is that it links the flood mentioned in the three surviving Babylonian deluge epics of Ziusudra (Eridu Genesis), Utnapishtim (Epic of Gilgamesh), and Atrahasis (Epic of Atrahasis) to river flood sediments in Shuruppak, Uruk, Kish et al. that have been radiocarbon dated to ca. 2900 BC. This has led some scholars to conclude that the flood hero was king of Shuruppak at the end of the Jemdet Nasr period (ca. 3000–2900) which ended with the river flood of 2900 BC.[10]
Ziusudra being a king from Shuruppak is supported by the Gilgamesh XI tablet (see below) making reference to Utnapishtim (Akkadian translation of the Sumerian name Ziusudra) with the epithet "man of Shuruppak" at line 23.

 

[outhouse]

And none of this supports your statement that Ziusudra survived the flood on a barge with a bunch of animals. That is still a myth.

the kings list isnt

 

[fallingblood]

But I like this one better


Ziusudra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sumerian king list
Main article: Sumerian king list
In the WB-62 Sumerian king list recension, Ziusudra, or Zin-Suddu of Shuruppak is recorded as having reigned as both king and gudug priest for 10 sars, or periods of 3,600.[5] In this version, Ziusudra inherited rulership from his father Šuruppak (written SU.KUR.LAM) who ruled for 10 sars.[6] The line following Ziusudra in WB-62 reads: Then the flood swept over. The next line reads: After the flood swept over, kingship descended from heaven; the kingship was in Kish. The city of Kish flourished in the Early Dynastic period soon after an archaeologically attested river flood in Shuruppak (modern Tell Fara, Iraq) and various other Sumerian cities. This flood has been radiocarbon dated to ca. 2900 BCE.[7] Polychrome pottery from the Jemdet Nasr period (ca. 3000–2900 BCE) was discovered immediately below the Shuruppak flood stratum,[8] and the Jemdet Nasr period immediately preceded the Early Dynastic I period.[9]
The significance of Ziusudra's name appearing on the WB-62 king list is that it links the flood mentioned in the three surviving Babylonian deluge epics of Ziusudra (Eridu Genesis), Utnapishtim (Epic of Gilgamesh), and Atrahasis (Epic of Atrahasis) to river flood sediments in Shuruppak, Uruk, Kish et al. that have been radiocarbon dated to ca. 2900 BC. This has led some scholars to conclude that the flood hero was king of Shuruppak at the end of the Jemdet Nasr period (ca. 3000–2900) which ended with the river flood of 2900 BC.[10]
Ziusudra being a king from Shuruppak is supported by the Gilgamesh XI tablet (see below) making reference to Utnapishtim (Akkadian translation of the Sumerian name Ziusudra) with the epithet "man of Shuruppak" at line 23.

And it still fails to support your statement that Ziusudra survived the flood on a boat with a bunch of animals. Again, that is a myth.

 

[fallingblood]

the kings list isnt

Did I say the kings list was? No I did not. I said your claim that Ziusudra survived the flood on a boat with a bunch of animals was a myth.

 

[outhouse]

In this case we have a real man and mention of the real flood

then a myth of the real flood with the same man on a barge.

They added a boat, big whoop, its not like the israelis version that is all myth wityh zero historicity.

the man and flood have historicity in the Sumerian version.

 

[fallingblood]

In this case we have a real man and mention of the real flood

then a myth of the real flood with the same man on a barge.

They added a boat, big whoop, its not like the israelis version that is all myth wityh zero historicity.

the man and flood have historicity in the Sumerian version.

You missed the point. Simply, you are wrong. The idea that Ziusudra survived on a barge or any of that is myth. If you read the story, you can see it is obvious myth. Sure the man and flood are historical. That doesn't mean their flood myth is historical. And this thread has nothing to do with the Hebrew myth.

Gnostic pointed to other examples of historic people being places into myths. It was commonplace. There is no reason to think that the flood myth conceding Ziusudra is any different.

 

[outhouse]

In this case we have a real man and mention of the real flood

then a myth of the real flood with the same man on a barge.

They added a boat, big whoop, its not like the israelis version that is all myth with zero historicity.

the man and flood have historicity in the Sumerian version.



washing machine,,, spin spin spin